From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA42C2BCA1 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343C8207E0 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728684AbfFGNsD (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2019 09:48:03 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:40404 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728242AbfFGNsD (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2019 09:48:03 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617BF337; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107155-lin (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAE143F718; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:47:58 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Jeremy Linton Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, john.garry@huawei.com, Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ACPI/PPTT: Modify node flag detection to find last IDENTICAL Message-ID: <20190607134758.GB15577@e107155-lin> References: <20190503232407.37195-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20190503232407.37195-4-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20190607095353.GC2429@e107155-lin> <1db40fa0-9834-5607-ec1c-794480e5c514@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1db40fa0-9834-5607-ec1c-794480e5c514@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:15:50AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for taking a look at this. > > On 6/7/19 4:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 06:24:05PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > > > The ACPI specification implies that the IDENTICAL flag should be > > > set on all non leaf nodes where the children are identical. > > > This means that we need to be searching for the last node with > > > the identical flag set rather than the first one. > > > > > > Since this flag is also dependent on the table revision, we > > > need to add a bit of extra code to verify the table revision, > > > and the next node's state in the traversal. Since we want to > > > avoid function pointers here, lets just special case > > > the IDENTICAL flag. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton > > > --- > > > drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > > > index 1865515297ca..456e1c0a35ae 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > > > @@ -432,17 +432,39 @@ static void cache_setup_acpi_cpu(struct acpi_table_header *table, > > > } > > > } > > > +static bool flag_identical(struct acpi_table_header *table_hdr, > > > + struct acpi_pptt_processor *cpu) > > > > Not sure if it's email client problem, but I see quite a few mis-alignment > > with parenthesis like above one. > > It looks fine in the original editor/text patch, but yes in my email client > I see it off by one (or two/three now that i'm replying). Its a mix of > tabs/spaces and I've seen this happen before in my email client due to the > leading "[>+]"? > No I have configured(hopefully correctly) my client, but if you not seeing issue with patch, that's fine. > > > > > > +{ > > > + struct acpi_pptt_processor *next; > > > + > > > + /* heterogeneous machines must use PPTT revision > 1 */ > > > + if (table_hdr->revision < 2) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + /* Locate the last node in the tree with IDENTICAL set */ > > > + if (cpu->flags & ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_IDENTICAL) { > > > + next = fetch_pptt_node(table_hdr, cpu->parent); > > > + if (!(next && next->flags & ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_IDENTICAL)) > > > + return true; > > > + } > > > + > > > + return false; > > > +} > > > + > > > /* Passing level values greater than this will result in search termination */ > > > #define PPTT_ABORT_PACKAGE 0xFF > > > -static struct acpi_pptt_processor *acpi_find_processor_package_id(struct acpi_table_header *table_hdr, > > > +static struct acpi_pptt_processor *acpi_find_processor_tag_id(struct acpi_table_header *table_hdr, > > > struct acpi_pptt_processor *cpu, > > > int level, int flag) > > > { > > > struct acpi_pptt_processor *prev_node; > > > while (cpu && level) { > > > - if (cpu->flags & flag) > > > + if (flag == ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_IDENTICAL) { > > > > flag_identical anyways check the flag, so I assume you can drop the above > > check. > > ? I think that would be a bug because then we would always be returning the > value of the IDENTICAL flag rather than the other flags passed into this > routine. This is the special case I think Raphael was asking for rather than > the function pointer/callback interface. > Ah OK, got it. Worth a comment ? I am sure I will forget next time I see this. -- Regards, Sudeep